Gun Control poll

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tom

Except for the fact the the young generations is mostly too lazy to be counted on to actually go out and vote.

Marching for faux causes and dumping trash all over the streets
pretty much is all the little piggies have the energy to do.

None of my LIBERAL girlfriends 3 sons 20,23,25 have ever voted, claiming they are too busy, of course they all play video games 10+ hours a week.
She always votes and said she was disappointed in them. When she told me of her disappointment I said I am glad they stayed home as they are all Democrats.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by azeri98

I don't think he could have killed as many people if he would have only had a handgun or rifle, there is no need for a citizen to have a military assault rifle, if you feel you need one of those to protect yourself, you must be very scared of something, it seems like guns are more valued than the lives of children, nothing wrong with owning a gun to protect your home and family but that can be accomplished without the use of big guns that can kill many in a short amount of time. Other countries have had mass shootings but not even close to the rate of the U.S, what is the reason for that?

If, God forbid, some wacko walks into a classroom with a Remington pump shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot and starts firing -- 90 projectiles in less than 5 seconds -- and kills or maims 20 kids, would you want to ban duck guns as well?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

If, God forbid, some wacko walks into a classroom with a Remington pump shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot and starts firing -- 90 projectiles in less than 5 seconds -- and kills or maims 20 kids, would you want to ban duck guns as well?

For some odd reason people are selecting an AR-15 or equivalent as a weapon of choice in a mass shooting when most of the time they give no advantage and can be somewhat of a disadvantage. A couple 9mm pistols one in each hand would wreck way more carnage than a rifle in close quarters and would be easier to conceal. Also for the uninformed anti gun liberal you can buy 32 round magazines for 9mm pistols for $24.95 all day long. Most anti gun liberals seem to think only an AR-15 can hold lots of bullets and also those bullets are magic, doing things other bullets don't.

[mrhorseplayer]

if youi tape the clips together you have an easier way to reload.

[mrhorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

None of my LIBERAL girlfriends 3 sons 20,23,25 have ever voted, claiming they are too busy, of course they all play video games 10+ hours a week.
She always votes and said she was disappointed in them. When she told me of her disappointment I said I am glad they stayed home as they are all Democrats.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

For some odd reason people are selecting an AR-15 or equivalent as a weapon of choice in a mass shooting when most of the time they give no advantage and can be somewhat of a disadvantage. A couple 9mm pistols one in each hand would wreck way more carnage than a rifle in close quarters and would be easier to conceal. Also for the uninformed anti gun liberal you can buy 32 round magazines for 9mm pistols for $24.95 all day long. Most anti gun liberals seem to think only an AR-15 can hold lots of bullets and also those bullets are magic, doing things other bullets don't.

Automatic Glock 18 with 100 Round Drum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuNqO6UBYX0

No FanDan, we can't personally own one....

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Most anti gun liberals seem to think only an AR-15 can hold lots of bullets and also those bullets are magic, doing things other bullets don't.

The AR-15 is a more powerful weapon and does more damage though...there IS a difference...

[Tom]

AR-15s are only dangerous if they are not maintained properly.
You have to make sure there is not a loose nut on the trigger.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by Tom

AR-15s are only dangerous if they are not maintained properly.
You have to make sure there is not a loose nut on the trigger.

This explains a lot.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The AR-15 is a more powerful weapon and does more damage though...there IS a difference...

There are many other rifles that fire the same ammo and can accept "hi-cap" magazines. One of the most popular is the Ruger Mini-14.



The Ruger is largely ignored by gun grabbers because it doesn't look evil. It doesn't have a pistol grip or a bayonet mount or a folding stock, all defining features under the old assault weapons ban. For the most part, it is functionally equivalent to an AR-15.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The AR-15 is a more powerful weapon and does more damage though...there IS a difference...

Got any links to ballistic tests done on flesh or simulated flesh done by an unbiased source that proves that? I can't see how an AR-15 bullet with their typical design would do more damage at close range than a 9mm hollow point.
I understand the extra velocity from the extra powder, but with the bullet design wouldn't that just make for easier penetration and not blowing a bigger hole in something? I have shot quite a few things, but only items made from wood and metal, and a few rattlesnakes. I cannot image something .223 in diameter wrecking all the havoc claimed no matter how much powder is behind it unless flesh reacts way differently.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Clocker

There are many other rifles that fire the same ammo and can accept "hi-cap" magazines. One of the most popular is the Ruger Mini-14.



The Ruger is largely ignored by gun grabbers because it doesn't look evil. It doesn't have a pistol grip or a bayonet mount or a folding stock, all defining features under the old assault weapons ban. For the most part, it is functionally equivalent to an AR-15.

OK. But I was referring more to the handgun reference above.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Automatic Glock 18 with 100 Round Drum.

No FanDan, we can't personally own one....

Awww!

One less weapon against the coming race war/zombie apocalypse/nursing home residents revolt.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Got any links to ballistic tests done on flesh or simulated flesh done by an unbiased source that proves that? I can't see how an AR-15 bullet with their typical design would do more damage at close range than a 9mm hollow point.
I understand the extra velocity from the extra powder, but with the bullet design wouldn't that just make for easier penetration and not blowing a bigger hole in something? I have shot quite a few things, but only items made from wood and metal, and a few rattlesnakes. I cannot image something .223 in diameter wrecking all the havoc claimed no matter how much powder is behind it unless flesh reacts way differently.

The bullet from an AR-15 differs a lot from a 9mm. Because it is longer and more pointed, with most of its weight in the rear, it tends to tumble when it hits soft tissue. This effect creates a larger wound relative to its size. It also tends to fragment, creating multiple wound paths.

[elysiantraveller]

Bullet design and caliber are what's important. A partition varmint round out of an AR is going to fragment and blow to hell inside of a person even at pretty short ranges. NATO green tip with its steel core penetrator is probably just gonna leave a hole about the size of a pencil straight through... not ideal.

Caliber wise here is a good image. That 9mm is going to be performing the same as that 5.56 (.223) at short ranges. Beyond that things change. It's important to denote caliber though instead of gun type. I have an AR in the second round pictured the .450... that's a really bad day for a person regardless of distance.